Definitely Not a Conspiracy: Fact Review of the Ahl al-Kisa in Early Islam

Let’s review some historical facts, as best as I have been able to discern them:

A very small number of Muslims attended the burial of the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family. ‘Ali led both the ghusl (washing) and the janaza (funeral prayer).

Fatima – the sole surviving offspring of the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family – was upset with Abu Bakr and Umar, and distanced herself from the Muslim community. She was buried at night in an unmarked grave.

‘Ali initially refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, and did not serve in any wars under the first three caliphs, despite playing a decisive role in many of the battles of the prophetic era.

‘Ali refused, during the shura appointed by ‘Umar, to accept the precedents of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as binding upon him if granted the caliphate. Due to his refusal, the caliphate was granted to ‘Uthman.

When ‘Ali was finally established as the caliph, he faced three separate rebellions from the Companions: Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan. He was eventually assassinated by one of those who opposed his rule.

After ‘Ali’s assassination, his son Hasan was forced to abdicate the caliphate due to Mu’awiyah’s continued armed opposition.

Husayn, the brother of Hasan and the son of ‘Ali, was beheaded by the Umayyad army at Karbala, along with other sons and grandsons of ‘Ali. The remaining family members were taken captive and forced to march hundreds of miles to Damascus, the seat of Umayyad power.

All of this happened within 50 years of the burial of the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family.

According to narrations in both Sunni and Shi’i sources, these 5 personalities (Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn) were an especially connected group beloved to God and known as the “People of the Cloak (ahl al-kisa’).”

Some people think the Shi’i narrative of early Islamic history is based on a “conspiracy theory,” but they must not know the meaning of the English word “conspiracy.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as “a secret plan” or “the act of secretly planning.” There is nothing secret about these historical facts. This is a clear record of open hostility towards ‘Ali and Fatima, and their two sons Hasan and Husayn. And it even manifests as a lack of concern for the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family. The most plausible interpretation of why he remained unburied for a few days is because ‘Ali was waiting for the community to come together to collectively mourn his passing. But in over 18 years of studying the Islamic tradition, I have not come across any account of a large group of people coming together to say farewell.

It hurts me to write this. It hurts me to have to speak such a painful truth. I am not a negative person – it is the facts of history that have led me in this direction. On the one hand, we could just chalk this up to an unfortunate series of unrelated events. However, that is highly implausible. ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn are universally-agreed upon as being from the most righteous and most knowledgeable. They must have known what they were doing. They must have maintained consistent and clear opposition to the status-quo of the early caliphate as a primary means of preserving Islam as they understood it to be.

Thus, one must accept that the Shi’i narrative of early Islamic history is well-grounded in the traditional sources. The famous medieval Sunni counter-rebuttals, such as those of Qadi Ibn ‘Arabi and Ibn Taymiyyah, rely primarily on Sunni hadith literature. That is a type of circular logic, plain and simple. It is like saying that Sunnism has the right interpretation of early Islamic history because Sunni sources show that they have the right interpretation of early Islamic history. That is not to say that these medieval texts are a priori incorrect – rather, it is to say that they have an inherent weakness in their arguments. By relying on the assumption that the reader has already bought into the accuracy of Sunni hadith methodology, which of course the Shi’a do not, these texts are a classic case of “preaching to the choir.”

Many, if not all, of the facts just mentioned are well-known to the average Shi’i. But they are often not known by the average Sunni. What does that say about how we collectively remember early Islamic history? Are we complicit in continuing a tradition of suppression? If we want to be a community who truly loves the Ahl al-Kisa, must we not speak plainly about the suffering they collectively endured? It is not enough to publish fada’il literature about how great they were, although that is admirable as long as it is not done with the intention of distracting from the details of their suffering. One has to analyze the lives they lived, who fought them, who cursed them, who abandoned them, and how they died and were buried.

I leave it up to you to ponder the implications of these facts, and how they may or may not relate to other facts. History is complicated, even though we often want it to be simple. I just wish someone had laid it out plainly for me like this many years ago. It would have saved me a lot of time reading.